Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Sign in to follow this  
Robert

KLIA Topics - Master thread needed?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, KK Lee said:

In the contrary; when Asian tigers were prospering in the 1990's, a number of foreign airlines wanted to serve or increase frequency to KUL but was denied to protect mas or mas wasn't interested to reciprocate. When mas was under mr 019 control, besides a few 'south south cooperation' routes instructed by then pm, mas management had literally freehand.

Can you show some examples of this? Because AFAIK, BA had a daily LHR-KUL-PER at one point and LHR-KUL-SYD 3-4x weekly at one point. BA had free reign at KUL along with QF. JL/QF even had the exclusive rights to sell KUL-SIN-KUL last time. Lots of other European carriers were given fifth freedom, either to BKK or CGK.

33 minutes ago, kandiah k said:

I guess the consequences has prevailed now that SIN has stepped in to provide that extra slots and what not. This was the motto of their leader then, SIN should be priority, even if it was at the expense of protecting SQ (or not) 

Lol. SG not protecting SQ. They may not have protectionist policies by law, but they have other means to protect SQ. Ever wonder why 3K is in T4 at SIN or there is no Air Asia Singapore? I don't know if CX moved to T4 by choice. KUL previously had something similar too. SQ wasn't able to renovate their KF lounge at KUL because MAHB will not give them the permit to do so. SG just knows how to market themselves well. Just need to scratch a bit and all will be revealed :)

7 minutes ago, JuliusWong said:

The rot started with Dr. M, like him or loathe him, one cannot deny he effing screwed up many things, especially when it comes to aviation.

Everything except cars/roads. He was the one who made Malaysia a car-centric country. Even in his second term by canceling a lot of public transit services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Craig said:

Can you show some examples of this? Because AFAIK, BA had a daily LHR-KUL-PER at one point and LHR-KUL-SYD 3-4x weekly at one point. BA had free reign at KUL along with QF. JL/QF even had the exclusive rights to sell KUL-SIN-KUL last time. Lots of other European carriers were given fifth freedom, either to BKK or CGK.

Lol. SG not protecting SQ. They may not have protectionist policies by law, but they have other means to protect SQ. Ever wonder why 3K is in T4 at SIN or there is no Air Asia Singapore? I don't know if CX moved to T4 by choice. KUL previously had something similar too. SQ wasn't able to renovate their KF lounge at KUL because MAHB will not give them the permit to do so. SG just knows how to market themselves well. Just need to scratch a bit and all will be revealed :)

Everything except cars/roads. He was the one who made Malaysia a car-centric country. Even in his second term by canceling a lot of public transit services.

Then why BA and QF exited KUL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KK Lee said:

Then why BA and QF exited KUL?

They exited because KUL yield is lower compared to BKK and SIN and there were more profitable routes they could earn more money from. In addition, the introduction of new generation of aircraft also reduced the need for stopover. Corporate strategy change in both BA and QF also resulted in the elimination of less important routes. You can have a good read in the airliners.net threads:

  1. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=250615
  2. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123799
  3. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72115
  4. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=577581
  5. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176851
  6. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=326557
  7. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73105
  8. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=182665
  9. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=225671
  10. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150731
  11. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60107

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, KK Lee said:

Then why BA and QF exited KUL?

QF left at the height of the AFC in the late 90s. Till this day, they have a lot of rights to Malaysia and beyond that aren't used. Doesn't mean Malaysia is not allowing competition. BA left and returned, left again and will return. There's some cooperation between BA and MH for beyond connections at both ends, so it makes sense for BA to return. BKK will be resumed from LGW, generally a much lower yielding airport. There's a tiff between QF and MH. IF they can get back in bed together we will see QF back at KUL. MY-AU is not a small market (excluding beyond connections). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JuliusWong said:

They exited because KUL yield is lower compared to BKK and SIN and there were more profitable routes they could earn more money from. In addition, the introduction of new generation of aircraft also reduced the need for stopover. Corporate strategy change in both BA and QF also resulted in the elimination of less important routes. You can have a good read in the airliners.net threads:

  1. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=250615
  2. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123799
  3. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72115
  4. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=577581
  5. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176851
  6. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=326557
  7. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73105
  8. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=182665
  9. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=225671
  10. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150731
  11. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60107

In yield management on LHR-KUL-AUS, airlines could allocate more seats to or prioritize higher yield LHR-AUS and fill remaining with low yield AUS-KUL and KUL-LHR. Opex ex-KUL was cheaper than SIN, poor yield on KUL-LHR is not the reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KK Lee said:

In yield management on LHR-KUL-AUS, airlines could allocate more seats to or prioritize higher yield LHR-AUS and fill remaining with low yield AUS-KUL and KUL-LHR. Opex ex-KUL was cheaper than SIN, poor yield on KUL-LHR is not the reason.

The management at BA, LH, AF, and QF certainly think differently than you do. They must have run the numbers (along with other external factors as secondary factors) to come to a conclusion in axing KUL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Craig said:

QF left at the height of the AFC in the late 90s. Till this day, they have a lot of rights to Malaysia and beyond that aren't used. Doesn't mean Malaysia is not allowing competition. BA left and returned, left again and will return. There's some cooperation between BA and MH for beyond connections at both ends, so it makes sense for BA to return. BKK will be resumed from LGW, generally a much lower yielding airport. There's a tiff between QF and MH. IF they can get back in bed together we will see QF back at KUL. MY-AU is not a small market (excluding beyond connections). 

what caused it? Cant remember at all :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember vaguely something about some leader saying something and lashing out at the other, but it could be a trivial reason for this. There is surely enough demand and traffic between AUS and MYS. Lots of Malaysians reside in Perth, Melbourne and Sydney, and some in ADL and CBR. Something bitter maybe between the two locations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Robert said:

what caused it? Cant remember at all :(

I don't think the actual reason was ever disclosed. It was just rumors here and there, but it was QF who sponsored MH into Oneworld (fact). And the rest are just hearsay. QF was planning to set up a more premium/full service carrier based in KUL called RedQ (IIRC) during MH-QF OW annoucement. There was some bad blood between MH and QF when MH was in the process of becoming a Oneworld member and it remained till today. There were some rumors that MH (or Malaysian government) wants QF to move their SIN hub to KUL (IIRC, including moving one of the LHR flights via KUL). QF obviously objected to that simply because the demand from SIN is much higher and garners higher yield than MY market. There were a lot more transfer opportunities from SIN (QF also transfer non-OW pax from AF, KL etc from SIN.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Robert said:

what caused it? Cant remember at all :(

QF suspended its flights to Kuala Lumpur in 1999 on grounds that it was not viable economically to continue with its flights due to poor passenger load. This was what the then-Qantas executive general manager sales and marketing John Borghetti (jeng jeng jeng!) said.

Then, strangely in 2011, QF sponsored MH's entry into oneworld. In the following year, Mh officially joined the alliance.

Alan Joyce's grand plan to establish a premium carrier with MH back in 2012 ended up in ashes when the latter faced massive internal staff revolt. It required MH to split to two separate airlines if I can correctly recall. Need to dig back the history.

Even after MH-EK signed a co-operation agreement in 2015 (thanks to Christoph Mueller), QF (which signed similar deal with EK in 2013) remained cool for any deeper co-operation with MH.

I think MH's lack of reciprocal in moving forward the planned premium carrier to QF's sponsoring its entry to oneworld may have burn the bridges.

EDIT NOTE: Found this really detailed QF's plan for premium carrier:

  1. https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/how-qantas-planned-to-make-its-asian-premium-carrier-viable-68111
  2. https://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-still-has-sights-set-on-malaysian-tie-up-20111208-1ol8y.html (behind paywall)

Proposed names: RedQ, RedQ Executive Flyer, OneAsia or RedSky...Sapphire was proposed at one time.

Good God, fortunately those names didn't went through. RedQ was later adopted as AirAsia's HQ in KUL.

Edited by JuliusWong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kandiah k said:

I remember vaguely something about some leader saying something and lashing out at the other, but it could be a trivial reason for this

The 'recalcitrant pm' saga ..... 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BC Tam said:

The 'recalcitrant pm' saga ..... 😁

Most of the countries current mess can be traced from this fella. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JuliusWong said:

EDIT NOTE: Found this really detailed QF's plan for premium carrier:

  1. https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/how-qantas-planned-to-make-its-asian-premium-carrier-viable-68111
  2. https://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-still-has-sights-set-on-malaysian-tie-up-20111208-1ol8y.html (behind paywall)

Proposed names: RedQ, RedQ Executive Flyer, OneAsia or RedSky...Sapphire was proposed at one time.

Good God, fortunately those names didn't went through. RedQ was later adopted as AirAsia's HQ in KUL.

Wasn't this happening during the phase when TF was on the MH BoD?

It was understandable that MH staff were against the proposal - it was like a backdoor method to displace MH. I think the final result would be the closure of MH due to absorption of MH by this new venture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flee said:

Wasn't this happening during the phase when TF was on the MH BoD?

It was understandable that MH staff were against the proposal - it was like a backdoor method to displace MH. I think the final result would be the closure of MH due to absorption of MH by this new venture.

Yes, it was happening around the same time, but the MH-AK share swap happened August 2011, slightly earlier. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airports-networks/malaysia-airlines-airasia-sign-collaboration-agreement

The whole idea was from those stupid staff at Khazanah Nasional. TF and KM definitely benefited via the insider trading when the share swap happened. https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/proposed-masairasia-share-swap-did-not-take-some-profited-insider-trading

Quote

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-17934467

Tony Fernandes, chief executive of AirAsia, and his deputy Kamarudin Meranun have both quit the MAS board.

The pact had seen Tune Air, the parent company of AirAsia, exchange 10% of AirAsia shares for 20.5% of MAS stocks with state-owned Khazanah Nasional.

Azman Mokhtar, managing director of Khazanah said: "The cross-holding of shares has become a distraction to management's efforts to turnaround MAS and win stakeholders' support for collaboration."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...